LOGIN
 
Share Page:
Back

Volume 19 , Issue 3
May/June 2004

Pages 350–356


Six-month Performance of Implants with Oxidized and Machined Surfaces Restored at 2, 4, and 6 Weeks Postimplantation in Adult Beagle Dogs

Lisa Knobloch, DDS, MS/Peter A. Larsen, DDS/Bob Rashid, DDS, MS/Alan B. Carr, DMD, MS


PMID: 15214218

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare machined-surface implants (control) and oxidizedsurface titanium screw-type implants (test) loaded with fixed partial dentures at 2, 4, and 6 weeks postplacement in terms of implant survival and stability. Materials and Methods: The beagle model was chosen for the study. Four mandibular premolars were extracted bilaterally from each dog. After 2 months of healing, 4 implants were placed in each dog. HaIf of the dogs (n = 6), the test group, received oxidized-surface implants; the other half (n = 6), the control group, received machined-surface implants. In each group, 2 dogs were randomly assigned to a 2-week preloading healing period, 2 to a 4-week period, and 2 to a 6-week period. Three implants were loaded in each dog; 1 was left unloaded as a control. Clinical stability and survival were monitored every 2 weeks for 6 months. Results: Failures were noted only among the implants assigned to the 2- and 4-week groups. Failures accounted for 9.4% (9/96) of the implants—12.5% (6/48) of the control implants and 6.3% (3/48) of the test implants. One hundred percent prosthesis stability was noted for the test-surface implant group. Stability of the test implants was significantly better than stability of the control implants (–2.6 vs –1.7, P  .05). Mean Periotest values at loading were 3.7 for the group loaded at 2 weeks, 1.6 for the group loaded at 4 weeks, and 0.6 for the group loaded at 6 weeks. Fifty percent of the 6-week group, 25% of the 4-week group, and 12.5% of the 2-week group had a Periotest value  0 at loading. Discussion: The results reveal a qualitative difference in performance between the implant groups. Twice as many failures occurred in the control group, few failures occurred following loading, and no failures occurred after 4 weeks postplacement. The survival curves for both implants were flat after 4 weeks; however, the duration of follow-up may hide effects of time-dependent factors on survival and poses a concern for clinical inference. Conclusions: Early loading of both implant types was well tolerated, as only 2 failures occurred following loading. A subsequent report will review these outcomes along with histomorphometric data collected at 6 months to better understand the significance of tissue- level implant-surface interaction for survival and stability. INT J ORAL MAXILLOFAC IMPLANTS 2004;19:350–356


Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

 
Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.

 

© 2014 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc JOMI Home
Current Issue
Ahead of Print
Archive
Author Guidelines
About
Accepted Manuscripts
Submission Form
Submit
Reprints
Permission
Advertising
Quintessence Home
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
About Us
Contact Us
Help